Four years after Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay, $195.7 million renovation in works

[dixiegrrrrl]

in renovations and new construction

Pentagon request includes $49 million for new jail for 'special' detainees

White House shut office charged with closing controversial US prison

Crumbling structures make it a 'money pit,' says former military prosecutor

President Barack Obama famously promised in early 2009 to close the US military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba within 12 months. But new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is instead considering a proposal from his top commanders to spend $195.7 million renovating it and erecting a new prison building.
The new construction would include $49 to house high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks, whose initial detention and interrogation was handled by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York Times reported that it would likely replace Camp 7, the oft-rumored but never acknowledged installation for those 'special' detainees.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297620/Four-years-Obama-promised-close-Guantanamo-Bay-military-prison-195-million-dollars-renovations-new-construction.html

[Wilms]

1. What Changed? n/t

[cstanleytech]

23. Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010

[rhett o rick]

69. Yes let's blame Congress. It's like the president didnt know when he made the promise

that he would run into resistance. But the buck stops with Congress. The Commander in Chief in a time of war cant move the prisoners?

[cstanleytech]

71. The commander in chief cannot do squat if one of branches of government

says "no" to him or her.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036520690885858.html

[Dragonfli]

81. Unless he would like to kill a wedding party somewhere, then he does so on a whim

with no oversight. No one is believing the bullshit anymore, You can't be powerless as an executive and at the same time be all powerful as is claimed with extra-judicial killings.
Even the stupid people are catching on.

[jeff47]

86. The Constitution gives absolute power in spending to Congress

And the Constitution gives near-absolute power in war to the Executive branch.

So yes, Obama can blow up any wedding party he likes, as long as it's covered by the massively-over-broad AUMF. And he also can't move the prisoners from Gitmo.

[cstanleytech]

110. Might wanna save your breath as at this point its clear some people

will only hear what they want to hear.

[jeff47]

118. I really don't mind pointing out to them that they're wrong. Over and over again. (nt)

[Dragonfli]

112. prisoners of war fall within the "absolute power" you claim he has when he dons his war king persona

You really will excuse anything out of pure blind loyalty, that is unhealthy and a little creepy IMO.

[jeff47]

117. No, they don't.

Obama could legally drone-strike the prisoners at Gitmo.

He can't legally move them to the US for trial.

[Dragonfli]

122. If he is "GOD OF WAR" with such awesome war power, just how are prisoners of war not part of war?

JUST because you are being willfully stubborn and claim you think prisoners of war are separate from war?

Now you are being more than just silly, now you are just making up whatever sounds good to you.
You really, really need to believe this bullshit don't you? Whatever it takes to make you feel good about supporting keeping s rendition and torture camp alive forever, that must be hard unless you lack all humanity and empathy, so I guess it really is something you need.

That makes me less angry, now I just feel sad for you and your fate.
I will leave you alone, you need to believe this, true or not, I won't rub your face in what you need so badly to deny.

[jeff47]

124. Because, again, military and financial power are different things.

JUST because you are being willfully stubborn and claim you think prisoners of war are separate from war?

Still clinging to "the only power is military power" I see.

The neocons agree with you.

Perhaps that should make you take a minute to think about whether financial power and military power are the same thing.

Obama has military power. He does not have financial power.
Congress has financial power. It does not have military power.

That's kinda the point of separating powers in the Constitution. Congress can use it's financial power to restrict the military power of the President.

[rhett o rick]

82. From your link

"Congress on Wednesday passed legislation that would effectively bar the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial, rejecting pleas from Obama administration officials who called the move unwise."

The key words here are "to the U.S. for trial". I bet we have prisoners "of war" held in other locations around the world. I bet Congress cant stop the CIC from moving prisoners from Gitmo to other prisons EXCEPT IN THE USofA.

The President has way more power than some would like to rationalize.

We will cut Medicare and pay for refurbishing Gitmo.

[cstanleytech]

128. Its called the power of the purse for a reason rhett as they could do the same

even if it involved an overseas prison.
No, what needs to happen is one of two things, either SCOTUS needs to step in and do the ethical thing and make a ruling putting a stop to gitmo or the republicans in congress need to do the right and honorable thing but I am not going to hold my breath on that first one and the 2nd has about as much chance as I do at ever winning the powerball.

[rhett o rick]

134. There is nothing stopping the president from moving the prisoners to another prison other than

in the USofA. But he wont because he is happy to keep Gitmo open and blame the repubs.

Spend money on refurbishing Gitmo and cut Medicare benefits. That's Pres Obama.

[cstanleytech]

137. Incorrect rhett. As I have pointed out congress can repeat what they

did regarding the funding and thats a power no president can ignore.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

2. That's nuts.

[jazzimov]

3. He tried, He really tried.

NIMBY's stopped him. Some people criticize him for violating the Constitution, but others actually look at cases like this and realize that he is following the Constitution.

Some people see what they choose to see.

[JaneyVee]

4. The vote did go down in flames 96-4, but throwing $200Million at it is absurd.

[larkrake]

5. He promised to TRY, not knowing the Repugs would obstruct

Hagal needs to say no now or the Military complex will run over him

[dsc]

6. there is a naval base there

most of the 200 million is for the base.

[Dragonfli]

7. Some people will believe anything, I never fell for that campaign lie, but I did fall for others

so I can't really judge those that believed it would be closed.

I believed the bush tax cuts would be ended, mostly because doing nothing would accomplish it. Turns out I was dead wrong, they kept being continued for years and then 85% of the cuts for the top were made permanent, Doing nothing in order to keep a promise is too much to ask of a modern politician.

[Cha]

9. Sorry, your post reeks of low information.

It went down in the Senate with Dems voting against.

[Dragonfli]

18. Like I said some people will believe anything, like Obama "never mentioned chained CPI"

I also said I was just as gullible about other issues. Keep believing in Tinkerbell luv, she needs you or she will fade away.

I like to learn from my mistakes, the only reason I voted for a liar a second time is the other liar was far worse.

Austerity while the richest keep getting richer is the price we will pay for not having any better options than a friend of the rich and the wet dream of the rich.

I have no good options but that doesn't mean I am required to believe lies, no matter how much you think you have the right to expect me to.

[Cha]

37. Keep digging and

and slinging your ignorant cheap pot shots at the President. I can see you're entrenched.

[Occulus]

56. You didn't deny any of that, you know.

Last edited Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Also, calling something a "cheap shot" means it's actually true, and you just consider it low hanging fruit.

That's what a "cheap shot" is, after all... an easy dig everyone already knows is true.

It's interesting, how Obama's biggest defenders have wholly stopped refuting facts, and started complaining about how easy they are to reference. It almost makes me think they already knew all these things, and were hoping nobody would put it all together.

[99Forever]

70. Bingo.

We have a winner.

[jeff47]

10. The lie is that it's Obama keeping it open

Congress is the one blocking it.

Obama was on track for trials in the US, and making preparations to shut the prison down.

Republicans freaked out, and terrified Democrats voted with them. So there is a law on the books now that forbids Obama from spending any money to close the prison at Gitmo.

So unless you've got a very clever plan that will cost $0, including the salaries of everyone involved and no fuel for the vehicles doing the moving, it's Congress you should be mad at.

[Dragonfli]

20. I missed the veto attempt, silly me, I thought his party was providing him cover

I didn't know he was tied up in a closet by those mean old other Democrats, my bad.

[jeff47]

62. It passed by a veto-proof majority.

But keep blaming Obama. That way you can keep the pressure off Congress, so they don't suffer any penalty for keeping it open.

[Dragonfli]

73. I blame congress with providing him the cover he wanted to look like "he tried"

"But no one in his own party would let him wear his big president pants, all he could do as a powerless thumb-sucking waif was whatever the mean congress told him to do."

I am really to believe that a new president, right out of the gate, with a majority in congress was as weak as a mouse fart regarding his duties as Commander of the Armed forces and lead power of the executive branch? This same mouse fart of a presidential powerhouse can however kill anyone in the world he or his undisclosed mansiples decide are a threat based on undisclosed evidence without even telling this supposedly all powerful congress why he feels an execution without showing proof is in order?

As weak as a mouse fart when it comes to closing an illegal detention facility, but as powerful as Zeus himself when people need killing without evidence, that sure is a remarkable combination of ultimate weakness and ultimate power you believe in, You are the reason PT Barnum became wealthy, he called such people rubes, I call such people easily lead with nothing but BS and a liar with a pretty smile, do you buy several used cars a year? Do you find they break down allot from bad luck? That nice salesman with the handsome smile would never sell you a lemon

[jeff47]

87. We don't live in a monarchy, as much as you'd like to.

I am really to believe that a new president, right out of the gate, with a majority in congress was as weak as a mouse fart regarding his duties as Commander of the Armed forces and lead power of the executive branch?

The problem is you're trying to conflate foreign policy with spending. The Executive branch has near-absolute power in foreign policy. It has 0 power in spending.

And you really think that Congress was bowing down to Obama? Were you in a coma?

[Dragonfli]

111. You completely ignored the part where he does claim such power

When inaction suits his agenda, "he has no power"
when he feels like being king-like, judge, jury, executioner, with no oversight and no need to show evidence a crime has been committed, "he has complete and unquestionable authority as CIC io order executions of whomever he chooses and anyone near whomever he chooses, even do a double tap to pick off an ambulance or two".

Which is it?
Which is it?
Which is it?

you are confused because both things can not be true at once and your devotion requires you must rationalize both things at once for him to be the perfect man you must believe he is. That inability to discuss that he claims to have no power, and also claims to have complete authority to kill without proof or oversight of any kind, that feeling is called cognitive dissonance and it is harmful to you sanity, you are not alone, but that disease used to only be contracted by right wingers.

[jeff47]

116. No, you are still conflating two different powers

Again, in matters of war, the only restriction is Congress has to authorize it. They did. Now Obama can kill whomever he wants, as long as he can justify the killing under the AUMF.

Obama can't spend money however he sees fit. That power resides in Congress.

you are confused because both things can not be true at once

Nope. I understand that "the power of the purse" is different than military power.

OTOH, you're still considering the president to be a monarch. Where military power is the same as spending power.

[Dragonfli]

119. Sure thing, whatever you need to tell yourself to be able to look at yourself in the mirror

The truth is plain enough, so is the need for some to lie to themselves.
Whatever makes you happy, just don't think you have a right to tell me I must also believe the lie, that is taking it too far.

[jeff47]

121. I'm not asking you to believe a lie. I'm asking you to accept reality.

Reality is military power and financial power are different.

Obama has military power. He does not have financial power.

Congress has financial power. It does not have military power.

[Dragonfli]

135. "There you go again", in my best Reagan voice, catapulting the propaganda.

You guys like Reagan, being so transformational and all, maybe if I use his line you will stop lying to me like a small child that will repeat the same lie over and over again, just to get the last word in.

You don't think the DOJ could have fabricated whatever rationale he needed to do what he wanted? Just like the DOJ did to to allow him to claim the power to murder, without trial, without proof, and without any oversight whatsoever anyone he or unnamed others cares to put on a list? Do you somehow think that absurd power grab is far more constitutionally sound than the actual power of the Commander of our armed forces to decide to close a fucking gulag left over from the previous resident's absurd power grab?

I am not that gullible, I am beginning to doubt you are either, you are pushing this bs on purpose or at least it appears that way.

Again, you simply can not demand that I believe a lie, no one has that power not even the third way purchased hacks at whatever right wing think tank you parrot when you need talking points.

[MoclipsHumptulips]

126. Thank you Dragonfli

GREAT posts here.

" just don't think you have a right to tell me I must also believe the lie, that is taking it too far."

Well said and spot on.

[Cha]

38. Thank you, jeff. Some people just can't face

reality when it doesn't suit their agenda.

[progressoid]

41. This is about doing exactly the opposite of spending money to close it.

$197 million to EXPAND it.

The President could easily say no to that.

[Dragonfli]

46. You haven't heard, he can't because the Republicans are making Democrats make him go along

Please try to keep up. He has no more power that that of a mouse fart, his title is just as a figure for nostalgic purposes, much like royalty in England

[progressoid]

47. Yeah

Perhaps if he took some classes in constitutional law or won the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe that would help.

Oops. Did I say that out loud?

[jeff47]

63. If you can't move the people out of the place it would be better to make it more habitable.

The facilities were not built to be permanent.

[progressoid]

65. So now suddenly we're concerned about their well being?

Now that's a laugh. Except it's not funny.

Clearly they now want it to be permanent. Even though, of the estimated 167 "detainees", 86 were cleared for release last year (yet they remain imprisoned). But let's pretend that those 86 actually get released. That means this "facility" would cost $2.44 million dollars for each remaining prisoner. What a marvelous combination of the prison and military industrial complexes and enhanced interrogation techniques.

USA! USA! USA!

[jeff47]

85. So not improving the place would do what, exactly?

Can't move them, because Congress says no.

So having them continue to live in a shithole accomplishes what, exactly?

If nothing else, the spending would help pressure Congress to eliminate their ban.

[progressoid]

93. OFFS, improving the prisoners' shithole isn't the main reason for this.

It's about NEVER having to bring them here or releasing them. Out of sight, out of mind.

And it wouldn't pressure Congress to eliminate anything. If anything, it's going to do the opposite. "Golly, why should we bother to move or release them when we just spend $200M on new digs?"

[jeff47]

100. And leaving in a shithole moves them towards release by.........? (nt)

[progressoid]

109. Yeah, you're right. Building a bigger prison will ensure their liberty.

[jeff47]

115. And not building a bigger prison will ensure their liberty by..........? (nt)

[progressoid]

120. It won't make a difference either way.

That's the point. This has NOTHING to do with the welfare of these prisoners.

But it will ensure we have a wonderful facility to continue the WAR ON TERRA!!®

[jeff47]

123. Little problem with your theory

We haven't added anyone to Gitmo for quite a while now. If the new facility was supposed to extend the war on terror, wouldn't we have to be sending new prisoners there already?

There's a cost to Congress refusing to allow Gitmo detainees into the US. Congress should either pay it, or stop being disgusting cowards.

[dixiegrrrrl]

144. "We haven't added anyone to Gitmo for quite a while now."

Sincere question here, Jeff..
How would we KNOW if anyone was added to Gitmo, that deepest darkest hole of secrets?

[cstanleytech]

155. Mmm good question dixiegrrrrl but then again the otherside of it is

can you prove that they have?

[rhett o rick]

49. So you are saying that he has no power to stop this new expenditure?

He appoints Chuck Hagel and Chuck wants to spend millions on upgrades and yet Pres Obama has no responsibility?

Give me a break. Where does the buck stop?

[jeff47]

64. Stopping the new spending isn't gonna help

The facilities were built to be temporary. They suck.

If Congress isn't going to let the prisoners leave, then the facilities should be upgraded to be more comfortable.

But keep blaming Obama. That way you can keep the pressure off Congress and they can get away with it.

[rhett o rick]

67. Is Congress keeping the prisoners there or just not funding the closing?

I have a hard time believing that the President as Commander in Chief, cant figure out a way to move the prisoners. Then let the facility fall down.

And you keep giving the president a pass. Poor Pres Obama, he didnt know when he promised to close Guantanamo that he would run into opposition.

Where does the buck stop? "Somewhere other than with the president."

[jeff47]

72. Congress says you can not spend any money on moving the prisoners

And Congress has absolute control over the budget.

Moving the prisoners requires paying for fuel, some piece of vehicle maintenance, and salaries for the people doing the moving while they're doing the moving.

I have a hard time believing that the President as Commander in Chief, cant figure out a way to move the prisoners.

Oh, moving them is quite easy. The problem is it costs money.

And you keep giving the president a pass.

What, exactly, should he do?

His options are 1) keep the place open, 2) repeat Iran-Contra (spending money w/o Congressional authorization).

[Dragonfli]

76. He can always order a drone strike agasinst the terrorists that are forcing him to keep an

illegal detention facility open. Strange how much power this weak ineffectual (according to you) figurehead can have - when he wants to.

[jeff47]

88. Different powers.

The President has near-absolute power in foreign policy. He has no power in spending - he can only spend what Congress says is OK.

And Congress is willing to pay for drone strikes.

[rhett o rick]

80. I bet the CIC can move prisoners in war-time w/o asking Congress.

I bet there isnt a special budget item for moving prisoners. I think you underestimate the power the President has.

I can see the need for rationalization that he is helpless and therefore not responsible.

[jeff47]

89. Doesn't matter if there's a budget item for "moving prisoners" in general

There's a specific entry forbidding moving those prisoners to the US for trial. Doesn't matter if there's a more general budget item that would pay for it - the specific ban overrides that.

[rhett o rick]

92. Then move them to prisons else where in the world. I bet we have prisons in Afghanistan.

I think you are underestimating the power of the president esp as CIC because you dont like his decisions.

[jeff47]

98. And that solves what, exactly?

We'd still be holding them in a hellish limbo. But now with snow.

The point of shutting the place down was to try the people who had performed criminal acts, and release those that did not. The ban blocks that, no matter where the prisoners are housed.

[rhett o rick]

101. The discussion was about spending money on Gitmo. Send the prisoners elsewhere

and let Gitmo crumble. Win-win. Dont spend another dime on Gitmo. Give it back to those we stole it from.

[jeff47]

107. The location is utterly irrelevant.

The problem is that we're holding these people without trial for eternity. It doesn't matter if we're doing that in Gitmo or some other location.

[TwilightGardener]

99. They're not all Afghans. And we did move some to Afghanistan's prisons.

[rhett o rick]

102. What does being Afghans have to do with it. They are not Cubans either.

Vacate the Gitmo prison and give it back to Cuba. Wont cost a dime.

[TwilightGardener]

104. Gitmo is under US control. Officially as of today, no Afghan prison is under US control.

We actually have prisoners who are non-Afghan in Afghanistan--we have to figure out what to do with them, too.

[dixiegrrrrl]

145. If Pres. Obama does not have the power to close Gitmo

then what do we call his campaign promise to close it? A lie?
I find it hard to believe he is stupid.
He stated he would close it.
I never heard him say, since then, that Congress keeps him from closing it.
He has to sign the bills that come from Congress, doesn't he?
Wouldn't that be a good time to address the issue publicly?

[TwilightGardener]

149. He has the power to close it. But that's immaterial when you need to actually

DO something with the detainees. He needs Congress's cooperation with that side of it.

[xiamiam]

74. 100 of those detainees are cleared to leave..BUT..obama has enacted a law which does not allow them

to return to their countries of origin..or at least certain countries like yemen..that is obama...not congress

[KoKo]

142. "terrified Democrats voted with them?" WHAT?

Those poor terrified Democrats...

[Dragonfli]

147. They must've been terrified they would be placed in our torture and rendition center in Cuba

If they didn't provide cover for the new warden that painted himself in a corner when he promised to close something he never intended on closing.

[bhikkhu]

30. Technically, he closed it the day after inauguration

inasmuch as executive orders can be seen as having any weight of authority:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities

Both parties joined in the senate overwhelmingly to prevent the carrying out of the order. It was a rotten thing to do, but it does at least illustrate and set precedent for the limits of the power of the executive order.

On taxes, either all the bush tax cuts all expired together and then Obama reinstated the cuts for the middle and lower income brackets, or Obama made sure they stayed in place for the middle and lower income brackets, and let taxes go up on the wealthy. Either way is fine with me, and if it seems like "doing nothing to you", I don't even know what would seem like something.

[Dragonfli]

35. Of course, I forgot, all the Democrats hated him as well, no way were they providing cover

I thought that the easiest thing to do with the giveaway to the wealthy tax cuts (requiring nothing) would be to let them all expire together, you do realize that those cuts very heavily favored the rich I gather? Then propose the new Obama tax cuts that favored the not extremely wealthy, DARING the Republicans to oppose such cuts - that would have lost them many elections they ended up winning because our party was busy enabling Republican bullshit instead.

I fall for less lies all the time, I miss the rose colored glasses but they clash with what is happening to people like me that are not safe in suburbia where slogans and bullshit don't mean you go hungry. No time to cheer on collaborators when those they should be in opposition to are trying to let you die of poverty.

It's not a game to the less fortunate and blue collar, it is serious as shit life or death.

[bhikkhu]

36. They didn't hate him, but they did join with the repugs and quashed the executive order

Call it what you will and assign whatever motives float your boat, but that's what happened.

And he raised taxes on the wealthy, so things are much closer to the balance of the Clinton era. If it is serious as shit to you, get the facts straight.

[Dragonfli]

48. Well, what he did was make 85% of breaks to the wealthiest permanent

after keeping them all long enough to add a couple trillion to the deficit "so we must now cut it out of the hides of the poor for a balanced budget" but this crap doesn't spin it'self, so, carry on.

[bahrbearian]

78. Obama asked for 1.2 Trillion in Revenue Boner offered 800 Billion, Obama settled for 600.

Why doesn't that make sense to you. It makes sense to the Pep Club.

[woo me with science]

66. Well said. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. But we can't afford $40 million

with the sequester ie. cuts we cannot afford that much money. Who exactly is sanctioning this kind of money? I would like them explain why we are cut yet this white elephant is kept going. I bet the contract renovating companies are going to make a lot of money out of this. Halliburton in there somewhere?

[msongs]

11. congressional prostitutes funneling money to their corporate sponsors? nt

[SleeplessinSoCal]

12. I will not blame Obama for this. His power is limited by states that will not cooperate.

[Iliyah]

13. Dems sided with GOPpers in defeating

closure of GB. A lot of America truly believe that the Pres can override both houses which he cannot do. Just like congress holds the purse for America.

[Vattel]

21. The executive branch can prosecute people for federal crimes.

[jeff47]

90. Not when Congress refuses to pay for those prosecutions. (nt)

[NYC Liberal]

14. Congress refused to find the closure and the transfer of prisoners

Better to renovate it than to let it go to shit with people having to be there b

[just1voice]

15. He's only THE HEAD OF THE MILITARY, lol.

Reading all the people's posts saying he can't do anything is so pathetic. What's even worse is reality, the U.S. has torture camps.

[Dragonfli]

22. He's like the Queen of England you know, no power, just there to lead parades.

[Heywood J]

59. I can't decide if your post is sarcasm or not.

That's the only explanation that makes sense, so I'll go with it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. It is. n/t

[mia]

16. "...spend $195.7 million renovating it ...". Who has ties to the corporation that submitted the bid?

As always, follow the money.

[rhett o rick]

17. We knew we liked Hagel. Maybe he will have a special "waterboarding" room dedicated it to Cheney.

I am curious how the DLC centrists among us will rationalize this. "Well it's still better than Romney." or "The Republicans are making Obama do this."

[Dragonfli]

26. I think on this one they will keep "the Democrats made him do it"

No one sent out any new talking points and that has worked all this time.
Those mean old Democrats, they are all against him just like the GOP

[KoKo]

143. According to above post... our Democratic Reps were "Terrified."

I guess that's the meme, now.

[Dragonfli]

148. yes of course I remember now, the carpets in the halls of congress were covered in urine

stains from the terror that racked there sensitive bodies. I feel bad for them now, like I do when a scared puppy pees on the floor by the door because he fears he can not ask to be let out, poor puppies, they can't help it, they are still learning.

[PufPuf23]

19. What a waste of $$$.

Also what a iconic blot on "The Home of the Free and the Brave".

[Marrah_G]

24. Wait...aren't we broke?

So broke that we have to cut all sorts of money to help our citizens who are struggling to survive?

I think they should have to have a bake sale and raffle to raise the money for their renovations.

[Nye Bevan]

25. And apparently $40 million of that was just for the new logo (nt)

[Mnpaul]

52. They already spent $188,000 for a new sign

$249,000 for a volleyball court
$296,000 for a go cart track
$3.5 million for 27 playgrounds
$683,000 to renovate a cafe that sells ice cream and Starbucks coffee
$773,000 to remodel a cinder-block building to house a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/06/AR2010060604093.html

I would say that someone's friends are making a few bucks here

[blkmusclmachine]

27. You Just Hope For Change.

Suckers.

[Cha]

39. "Suckers" backatcha.

[delrem]

28. W had power. Reagan had power.

Obama, apparently, "tries".

[Art_from_Ark]

58. As soon as W got out of the starting gate,

he started running roughshod over everything, even though he had lost the freaking popular vote and had to rely on one of the most unconscionable decisions of the Supreme Court ever to get into the White House. About the only thing he didn't get that he wanted was privatization of Social Security.

[Initech]

150. Conservatives were completely drunk with power during those administrations.

And now that Obama's not only been reelected they refuse to give up the power they once had. I blame Fox News.

[delrem]

152. FOX news has more power than the President of the USA?

No.
President Obama began his first term by claiming to be "bipartisan" and by failing to claim any turf. From that point on it was one "preemptive cave" after another. This has been a "bipartisan" administration which resulted in defending what is essentially Romneycare in an election pitting Obama vs Romney. Both parties are to the right of Reagan. Dems are now grasping at straws, trying to define what they actually stand for, while the most extremist of neocons are applauding Obama for his use of drones, for his prosecution of the WoT, for his defense of the banks, for his "look forward, not back" philosophy which has stamped the neocon program indelibly into an unassailable status quo.

This hasn't been good. In fact, it's been terrible. It's been the taking of all my dreams, my exultation when Obama won, and then pinching me awake to show me that I was an idiot, a fool to believe when I should have known better. It's been a dashing of hope.

[Initech]

153. They sure do act like it though.

Any attempts to become bipartisan is seen as bad for the party by Fox News and hate radio. Any attempts to cross the bridge are seen as weak by republican members. The Tea Party was invented by Fox News (specifically the guy who hides behind the constitution and history - but knows ZERO about it, Glenn Beck*) and bankrolled by billionaire traitors Charles & David Koch. They created a Congress where nothing gets done and nothing will get done as long as the GOP has even the slimmest majority. It's a very fucked up system if you ask me.


* - In fact there's no unit of measurement small enough created to show how little Glenn actually knows about how our government really works.

[Beacool]

156. That made me laugh out loud.

[JEB]

29. Not the investment in infrastructure I had hoped for.

And whoever is to blame, GITMO is still hideous shame on our nation.

[judesedit]

31. Thank the republican'ts.They are still blocking 107 Obama apointees.Only 4 during Bushco.Wake up

Obama can't do it by himself...or it would've been closed. 2014 is right around the corner. Vote this do nothing Congress out as soon as possible.

[Az_lefty]

32. I really thought this crap would change

How disappointing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. You're not supposed to notice things like this, let alone point them out.

The President is the bestest most wonderful leader we could ever hope for, or even imagine. Bow down you lowly dogs before his incomparable magnificence.

If it looks like he's been lying to you, it's only because he has discovered a new way to thwart the dastardly forces of evil by pretending to do exactly what they want so that several election cycles into the future the forces of nature will spontaneously cause it all to unwind into The Utopia that only his inconceivable mega-mind can imagine.

[OnyxCollie]

34. GITMO needs updating!

Russia, China, Iran- All the other torture countries are laughing at us!

We have to keep up with the Jones's!

[sylvi]

40. Oh come on

There's only like 166 prisoners down there and half of them have been approved for release, if I'm reading the fact sheet right. The remainder can't be split up among the 13-14 federal prisons we have that have "super-max" facilities? And according to the fact sheet, it costs $800,000 more per year for each prisoner to be held there than in a federal prison. How can we afford not to either move them or release them?

[URL]http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Gitmo-Numbers.pdf[/URL]

[TwilightGardener]

42. Congress doesn't want the detainees on US soil. These prisoners are in permanent limbo.

They need trials, repatriation elsewhere, or imprisonment in the US, but there are no funds allocated for that.

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. Be sure you read the part that says how LONG they have been approved for release.

I was reading up on this the other day and it turns out that many of the prisoners have been apprved for release for years, but nothing is being done to make it happen.

the truth is the gov't feels it cannot ever release these guys, or all the dirty secrets will be revealed about rendition and torture.

[TwilightGardener]

43. The only hope I have is that perhaps this ridiculous price tag will force Congress

to come to its senses and realize something must change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Just give it back to Cuba and throw in the prisoners as a bonus.

[dixiegrrrrl]

50. Now there's a thought....

[LeftInTX]

132. And Castro will put them on a boat and send them to the US!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

133. Karma is a bitch.

[Rex]

51. Military ain't going to shutdown a prison.

The Pentagon likes to have military prisons. They have them in the States and I have no doubt already expect this to become one too. I am being completely serious.

[DreamGypsy]

53. "The new construction would include $49 to house high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" ...

...wow, not much value in being a high-value target. Maybe each one gets a new toothbrush and a roll of TP.

BTW: the editorial faux pas was in the original article and is not the fault of dixiegrrrrl.

[dixiegrrrrl]

54. When I saw that, I thought they were buying from Wal-Mart

or something....

[DreamGypsy]

55. For $49 spent at Walmart..

...20.76 prisoners can escape from Guantanamo.

Harold And Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay

"...an irreverent and epic journey of deep thoughts, deeper inhaling and a wild trip around the world that is as "un-PC" as it gets."

And the U.S. Government saves $12.50. How's that for deficit reduction?

[dixiegrrrrl]

75. We need you on the economic Council, for sure!

[akbacchus_BC]

57. In all fairness to President Obama, he did try to close Gitmo, but a few

democrats voted against it. I hope closing Gitmo is still on his agenda during his second term!

[Egalitarian Thug]

61. Is the politics forum shut down or something? n/t

[woo me with science]

68. We're only broke when they want us to be broke. nt

[Turbineguy]

77. The more it costs,

the better for Al Qeada.

[Newest Reality]

79. I tend to wonder

what it is that may be keeping those prisoners there, in the first place.

While the rational seems to be something about them being dangerous, it occurs to me that there is information that could surface that we are not supposed to know.

That could range from, well obviously, their treatment there, to potentially damning revelations which could come up in a public trail or leak from a prison that is not under total, military jurisdiction outside the country.

I guess that would make it worthwhile to spend copiously on such an endeavor, just like the Bush Crime Family(tm) who spend a lot on endlessly scrubbing their filth into a clean, respectable image for all to see.

[dixiegrrrrl]

84. I agree...they are going to great lengths to keep the prisoners

isolated and quiet.
Even to the point of bugging the conversations between prisoners and lawyers.
The fact that some prisoners have been "released" on paper, but are still prevented from leaving, is very telling.

[TwilightGardener]

97. To be fair, some of these prisoners may well be risky to release.

Even if they weren't that bad when they were rounded up, they're sure to be somewhat...disgruntled now after years of imprisonment and possibly mistreatment. I figure it's like having a jar full of angry hornets, and you either let them languish and die in the jar, or you have to take the lid off to let them go.

[dixiegrrrrl]

105. Perhaps..but about half have met criteria for release, yet still are prisoners.

I would assume any ciriteria for release would take into consideration future danger.
As has been reported many times, a lot of totally innocent people ended up in Gitmo.

gitmo was theater, to prove there was a terrorist problem.
theater is over, but the cast remains locked up.

[Newest Reality]

108. True,

and that issue is a factor.

However, moving them here onto US soil, (and keeping them in maximum security) does not imply a release unless our legal system deems that be the case. Moving them here though, creates a greater potential for revelations.

We probably have many angry hornets in our profit prison system right now that may obtain release, too. Not much can be said for "corrections" that are punitive and do very little to reform or transform a prisoner. Institutionalizing people for long periods of time has a deep impact on their psyche.

Now, violent offenders are one thing, but there are many other "crimes" where that kind of "punishment" may exacerbate our societal problems and create vicious circles of behavior.

So, your case about being disgruntled is valid, yet I still think that the threat these prisoner's pose may be more about the system and the inside aspect of what has been going on. Maybe time will tell, as it did about the total fantasy simulation of why we attacked and occupied Iraq, etc.

[madokie]

83. And you can bet your ass that he'd close it today if he could

pukies wouldn't allow it then and won't allow it now

[just1voice]

91. Who's the Commander in Chief of the entire U.S. military?

Apparently you think it's the "pukies". It's not. Obama could close it tomorrow, easily. Perhaps you should read some history about other actions U.S. presidents have taken, starting with Bush who set up the torture camps.

Or, you can learn nothing and remain on the "sales team", LOL.

[TwilightGardener]

94. Ordering it closed means nothing without the procedures and funds to deal

with the detainees. Congress controls funds.

[madokie]

96. You have a lot to learn is all I can say to you in answer to this nonsense

No way will I attempt to edumacate you. Too big of a chasm there to transverse

[Dragonfli]

113. there is an old saying from wwII "you can kill em, but ya can't eat em" now the trendy phrase is

"you can kill em all you want without evidence, but ya can't close a rendition and torture camp"

The funny thing is, that old saying about being able to kill them but not eat them sprang from a front line saying simplifying the Geneva conventions, This new rationale springs from the new belief that says fuck Geneva, we can do whatever the fuck we want except close a place of rendition and torture, ironically contrary IMO.

[Puzzledtraveller]

95.

"la, la, la, la, la, la, la la...."

[L0oniX]

103. Promises shmomises ...who cares. Obama rah rah rah. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

106. What's the answer, then?

[Dragonfli]

114. Make excuses for not keeping promises apparently

[cstanleytech]

129. Well the first step is to do away with

congress, the senate and scotus in order that the president can issue royal decrees so he can keep all his promises.
Good luck with that.

[Dragonfli]

131. See, thank you for making excuses, Obama must expand Gitmo, only a king could not!!!!

[cstanleytech]

138. No, its not excuses it called "reality" and "facts".

So until or unless the entire constitution is rewritten we have to deal with things as they are including the powerlessness of a president to make good on a campaign promise.

[Dragonfli]

140. They just finished re-writing the entire constitution, to allow a president

and un-named person(s) to order the death of anyone anywhere anytime that they care to put on a list, without proof of any kind, without any oversight whatsoever, without revealing why to anyone, anywhere including this all powerful congress you speak of, also, still impressed with the excuse you made about Obama being powerless to not expand this rendition and torture center.

The document of which you speak is interpreted by these people that think it is their personal piece of toilet tissue to prove powerlessness when convenient, and absolute power when convenient.

So re-writing it appears to not only be happening but is a masterpiece in progress with lots of fun filled bullshit notes from his layer that this distinguished scholar will no doubt provide in future, and even these notes from his lawyer are not to be viewed, known, questioned or even glanced at unless they are the guys writing these notes and edits to this constitution they think they are authoring as they go.

Sweet set-up, If I were into that sort of thing, I would get hard thinking of these god-like men just as much as you.

Keep on catapulting that propaganda!

You are getting better at it all the time, was your first tour under Bush the younger? You have shown a little improvement since then.

[cstanleytech]

141. Attemting to label me or anyone who disagrees with you as a Bush supporter will not change the facts

in this case Dragonfli.
Facts are facts and the fact in this case is that the president as setup via the constitution doesnt have the power of the purse and because of that in some instances his ability to do what he wants or promises to do is limited.
Was I disappointed that he wasnt able to keep that promise? Yes I was but it clearly wasnt because he wanted to break it but rather he couldnt get the majority of congress to support closing gitmo and transferring the people being held there to civilian authorities to be tried in court like they should have been years ago.

[Dragonfli]

146. You read nothing other than the last sentence, did you, facts are facts, he already claims powers

he does not have under the set up, and Bush before him had notes from his lawyer that claimed the rights of torture among other things, including a fun little paragraph that discussed nasty details like the presidents right to crush a child's testicles, I assumed you started the apologetic tour back then, The "we won't pay to shut it down" bit of stagecraft is melodramatic silly nonsense and only people looking for a justification to not close an illegal gulag try to squint their eyes and believe. The entire rest of the world knows he just decided not to! the entire world accept for a few Presidential power grab apologists here in the states can clearly see that a President that re-writes his constitution to "allow him" the legal power to torture, or this new national embarrassment of a rewrite no one may even see that "allows him" the divine kingly right to kill anyone anywhere at any time with no oversight laws or limitations, they can see as clearly as that stain on our nation's soul in cuba, that the only thing keeping it open is a presidents power grab in the first place, and they can see that a President that can find flexibility in a document to assume the ultimate power of life and death over any citizen from any country on nothing more than a whim, literally a whim, as no proof need be shown anyone, is simply choosing to feel powerless in this small matter.

They see all this, and bootlicks like you defending this shit and think we are all arrogant lawless, frighteningly powerful monsters, no one is buying it, not with the constant re-writes that no man is allowed to see, you are keeping poor company, and to me, your enabling shit I have opposed since Bush the lesser started this whimsical pattern of interpretations of our laws to torture, have torture camps, keep torture camps, expand torture camps (and again great job continuing your excuse that he has no power to NOT EXPAND said camp) and now murder anyone anywhere anytime a president or even undisclosed other(s) chooses to put on a secret list, no one is fooled by the fainting spell act and the feigned lack of power to end what was done illegally to begin with.

I wondered if you started your enabling tour under Bush, because the pattern has continued without change, unless for the worse, how can you support such evil and obvious bullshit and not be consistent enough to support it when Bush started it in the first place.

[cstanleytech]

154. You win, bury your head in the sand regarding how our government is setup

because its clear you just will not accept reality.

[sabrina 1]

125. America's infamous Concentration Camp. Movies will be made, not here of course, and books written,

as they have about other equally infamous places and the victims, many who will be portrayed as heroes, and we will be the bad guys. In fact it's already happened. A total stain on this country, a gulag in a Democratcy where human beings are disappeared and tortured and held for years and years without charges.

Anyone associated with the existence of that hell hole will go down in history in infamy. The US is not the only country that gets to write about these atrocities.

[indepat]

127. Since money for GITMO can not likely be found in the national defense budget, bet pols will gladly

give social security and Medicare a few whacks to make up any MIC shortfall needed to keep us safe. After all, God and the people know pols will gladly accept higher rates of treatable illnesses, hunger, joblessness, poverty, and mortality so all funding sought by the MIC is quickly met.

[KoKo]

130. Okay...how do we Explain This?

HOW?

[flvegan]

136. Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich. n/t

[cstanleytech]

139. Ok, I'll bite.

Other than vetoing the spending bill what exactly do believe Kucinich could have done to close the base and move the people there into the civilian court system?
Keep in mind I dont support what Gitmo is being used for and I actually do believe that the people there should be in the civilian courts to have their day in court.

[emulatorloo]

151. ANSWER: STOP ELECTING REPUBLICANS and elect more LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.